![]() |
2011-02-19
, 03:59
|
Banned |
Posts: 358 |
Thanked: 160 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
|
#2
|
![]() |
2011-02-19
, 04:07
|
Posts: 2,225 |
Thanked: 3,822 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ Florida
|
#3
|
![]() |
2011-02-19
, 04:09
|
Banned |
Posts: 358 |
Thanked: 160 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
|
#4
|
![]() |
2011-02-19
, 11:21
|
Posts: 1,258 |
Thanked: 672 times |
Joined on Mar 2009
|
#6
|
The Following User Says Thank You to shadowjk For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2011-02-20
, 05:06
|
Posts: 310 |
Thanked: 383 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#8
|
nr_requests doesn't affect the amount of data cached before writing, or the duration before data gets written.
MMC/SD and usb flash drives behaves completely different than real SSDs. The emmc in n900 will do something like 8megabytes/second writing sequentially, and 30 kilobytes/second when fed random writes.
That means the better sorted requests to it are, the better throughput will be. Note I said throughput, not interactivity, which is probably what users mostly notice.
The Following User Says Thank You to nightfire For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2011-02-21
, 04:28
|
Posts: 4 |
Thanked: 5 times |
Joined on Nov 2010
|
#9
|
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3...y-is-happening
Then I read a bit more on nr_requests and found this site:
http://yoshinorimatsunobu.blogspot.com/2009/04/linux-io-scheduler-queue-size-and.html
I changed my nr_requests to 100000 and it feels like a balanced system and things are smooth. It's like this is what was missing.
Hope it helps...and don't forget to thank me